How Good LLM-Generated Password Policies Are?

Generative AI technologies, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), are rapidly being adopted across industry, academia, and government sectors, owing to their remarkable capabilities in natural language processing. However, despite their strengths, the inconsistency and unpredictability of LLM outputs present substantial challenges, especially in security-critical domains such as access control. One critical issue that emerges prominently is the consistency of LLM-generated responses, which is paramount for ensuring secure and reliable operations. In this paper, we study the application of LLMs within the context of Cybersecurity Access Control Systems. Specifically, we investigate the consistency and accuracy of LLM-generated password policies, translating natural language prompts into executable pwquality.conf configuration files. Our experimental methodology adopts two distinct approaches: firstly, we utilize pre-trained LLMs to generate configuration files purely from natural language prompts without additional guidance. Secondly, we provide these models with official pwquality.conf documentation to serve as an informative baseline. We systematically assess the soundness, accuracy, and consistency of these AI-generated configurations. Our findings underscore significant challenges in the current generation of LLMs and contribute valuable insights into refining the deployment of LLMs in Access Control Systems.

Automated Consistency Analysis of LLMs

Generative AI (Gen AI) with large language models (LLMs) are being widely adopted across the industry, academia and government. Cybersecurity is one of the key sectors where LLMs can be and/or are already being used. There are a number of problems that inhibit the adoption of trustworthy Gen AI and LLMs in cybersecurity and such other critical areas. One of the key challenge to the trustworthiness and reliability of LLMs is: how consistent an LLM is in its responses? In this paper, we have analyzed and developed a formal definition of consistency of responses of LLMs. We have formally defined what is consistency of responses and then develop a framework for consistency evaluation. The paper proposes two approaches to validate consistency: self-validation, and validation across multiple LLMs. We have carried out extensive experiments for several LLMs such as GPT4oMini, GPT3.5, Gemini, Cohere, and Llama3, on a security benchmark consisting of several cybersecurity questions: informational and situational. Our experiments corroborate the fact that even though these LLMs are being considered and/or already being used for several cybersecurity tasks today, they are often inconsistent in their responses, and thus are untrustworthy and unreliable for cybersecurity.